on collaboration

and an anniversary

The Sacramento San Joaquin Delta. Photo by me.

on collaboration

I was honored to be invited to give the opening talk at the 2021 Water Summit, hosted by the Water Education Foundation. I chose to talk about conflict, and specifically its role in collaboration. My full comments can be found at this link; the following is a much shorter version. While focused on water, the comments apply broadly.

I have been working on water issues in California at the statewide level for close to a decade now after many years working more regionally, and many more spent on adjacent issues like wildfire and climate change, in lots of different settings including academia, government, and the non-profit sector. A big part of my job as a scientist and science communicator has been communicating about water research and water more generally – reading about it, listening to others talk about it, talking about it myself, writing about it.

I spend a good part of each day filtering water news through my brain, my body, and my heart.

As many of you know, and experience alongside me, water communication involves a lot of cycles. In California, residents are used to the boom and bust cycle – times when we get more water than seemed possible and times that are so dry they leave us filled with dread. The news cycle follows with lots of articles about this boom and bust cycle.

Through it all, another cycle persists as well, and that is the siren song of collaboration, often posed as an antidote to conflict.

In my book on science communication, I tried to refocus the conversation from one of information provision and the elite performance of expertise to some really overlooked pieces of the communication puzzle, which includes a focus on tools like relating, deeply listening, working with conflict, and understanding trauma all with an eye toward an inclusive, equitable, and just future where practitioners also have room to care for both ourselves and others.

I want to focus on conflict specifically because if we need anything to fortify us for the journey ahead, particularly due to our changing climate as well as our tumultuous social and political contexts – we are all still living through a pandemic after all – it is a healthy dose of understanding that conflict, like power, simply exists – it is neither good nor bad, it simply is, and as much as many would like it to be, collaboration is not its opposite.

This is a vital topic right now because there is one thing that I hope not a cycle and instead here to stay: a rightful insistence that all water efforts be inclusive, equitable, and just, if not liberatory as well. To achieve this goal, it is crucial that people who have not traditionally been included in decisions are not only at the table so to speak, but that their perspectives, experiences, and expertise are actually brought to bear.

That means there is no room for collaboration in name only. Instead those using the term must instead be more specific about what they are saying when they talk about collaboration.

For example, if we are collaborating, we have to find a way to negotiate our very valuable differences to get to this generative place where we create something between us, something that is of both of us — the very definition of collaboration. In this process, conflict is not only inevitable, it is crucial if we are to truly collaborate and not simply insist that others capitulate to “our way.” This tension of negotiating difference – as hard as it can be sometimes – is in many ways the essence of our relationships, and our lives.

For something that is such a big part of human life, however, conflict is also deeply uncomfortable for many. While some people are conflict avoidant, other gravitate toward being in “the fight” – there are even whole professions built around it! – but either way, it’s two sides of the same coin, often giving conflict a much larger role than it needs to have, whether through neglect or inflammation.

When I am speaking about conflict, people often attach the word “resolution” to it, though I myself never use it. That is just one indicator of the discomfort caused by conflict – we must automatically be striving toward resolution before allowing the conflict to simply be, to see what can be learned there.

However, what I want to argue here is that simply put: conflict is a vital ingredient in the kinds of transformational changes that many of us are working toward. Indeed, conflict is not the evil it is often assumed to be, and again, collaboration is not its opposite.

(Water folks and people interested in power and truly equitable participatory processes - please see the full document link for more in depth discussion.)

Although conflict is challenging, it also provides the basis for building trust to know that collaborative processes are not all created equal, that conflict and power play a big and often overlooked role, and that should affect how practitioners communicate, which is less about information provision and more about ensuring not just that everyone has a seat at the table but that they are heard and their ideas are acted upon in accountable ways.

So, here is where I will say something that is likely, sadly, provocative in many settings: moving forward inclusively, collaboratively, collectively, justly, actually depends on conflict. Conflict has so much to teach those who are willing to learn. It should be said that I do not mean violent or dehumanizing conflict – I mean the type of conflict that simply exists when dealing with crucial, and sometimes literal life or death, issues.

Moving forward, when you hear the term collaboration, I hope that you will interrogate more deeply what is being said – what kind of collaboration? How will we listen to each other and take action based on what is said? How will conflict and power be negotiated? How do we ensure the process and outcomes are just and perhaps even liberating — and not simply for a select few?

on an anniversary

It’s hard to believe, but it’s been more than a year since Getting to the Heart of Science Communication was released. And, what a year it has been.

I have enjoyed speaking with so many folks about the book. I had hoped at some point to be able to talk about the book in person a bit more, but given the pandemic, I gave myself over to many, many online events. If you’d like to see me talk about the book, there are many recorded events available on my website, alongside podcast and other interviews. You can of course still buy the book wherever books are sold, and I’m happy to say that an audiobook version is also available!

I am heartened to see how some of the ideas in the book have made it out into the wider conversation about science and research communication, as well as public scholarship. And really interested in how some ideas there are a little harder to get out there — particularly when it comes to science communication labor.

Therefore, one big highlight was an “author meets critics” session, organized by Erika Wise and Elizabeth Havice, at the American Association of Geographers annual meeting. It was a time for me to hear some very deeply considered perspectives on the work from some folks I admire a great deal and the theme of labor was a big through line there, which helped me feel hopeful that topic will pick up steam.

As for what’s next, I’m not sure. There are a lot of changes coming, whether I like them or not. And, writing a book, at least for me, was a pretty all consuming project that I am now realizing I have to intentionally unhook myself from in an effort to move on to other ideas, topics, and spaces — and perhaps completely out of the field. We’ll see where it all leads.

I welcome any thoughts you want to send me about the content of this newsletter or otherwise.